Apple busted for false advertising

Be careful your product lives up to what you advertise it to be and be careful it does what you say it will do; that's the lesson that many tech companies are learning the hard way. Microsoft recently found that out as its facing an uphill battle to fight against a class lawsuit alleging it intentionally deceived using "Vista Capable" stickers to sell chipsets.

Now Apple is mired in a similar mess, based on some of its a bit exaggerated claims. Apple's bold advertising claim that its MacBooks support "millions of colors." The only problem -- MacBook LCD are only 6-bit TFT models, only allowing for only 262,144 colors. A true 8-bit display would indeed support "millions of colors", 16,777,216 colors in fact. However, Apple opted to ditch the eight bit display in favor of a cheaper 6 bit one, despite the high cost of Macs.

View: Full Article @ DailyTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Who uses MS Live Search?

Next Story

Microsoft, Symantec settle Windows dispute

79 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

reminds me about people saying you cant see high refresh rates on monitors
i always aim to have my home crt monitor set to 100mhz for desktop/gaming
and iv'e seen tons pf people tell ME i couldnt see the difference ..i can of course lol

i dont think i went of topic here either, most of the replies here are debating
wether you can see the difference in color counts.. i doubt id notice unless i tried to.

Clearly Apple is cheaping out and cutting corners to make a buck
and because it was Apple that did it we have Front Page worthy news.

Couldnt care less about Apply crap dont use their stuff and cant stand the fanboys either
but their commercials are entertaining :)
I love the one with the man in black asking Vista if you have permission to do.. (insert task name)
LOL UAC 0WNZ W00T !!1111ONE

This is a major issue for where I work. Our video labs are forced to buy the 24" models because of the color issue. 6-Bit does not cut it when doing graphical work.

For those that say its not noticeable... apparently someone did otherwise we wouldn't be here.

The people arguing that the human eye can't see the difference are missing a huge point even if their statement is true. It doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference or not, they put a product out there with one thing and then changed it to a cheaper substitute but at the same price while still advertising the same specs as before. They completely ripped people off.

I like that Apple is caught in a false publicity mess. As much as I like Justin Long and John Hodgman, the truth is those commercials I'm a Mac and I'm a PC are a load of crap. I've had 3 different Macs and now I have a custom built PC, and while I grant that Mac OS X is generally a more robust OS, based on price and usability, I prefer PCs, and I think Apple sometimes is full of crap.

Correction: TRUE publicity mess.
I like the Mac OS but I as well prefer PC hardware since you know what you buy is of decent quality. And the new Mac Ad saying Macs are from the same hardware maker, that was complete BS!!! CPU comes from Intel as well as the mobo, graphics from AMD/nvidia, RAM from generic makers, LCD panels from ViewSonic (at least the iMacs). Nothing is "all" from Apple. I truly prefer Linux to the Mac OS since it has a much better foundation and it makes you feel less like a MacTard showing off your iCandy

(LinDog said @ #29.1)
I truly prefer Linux to the Mac OS since it has a much better foundation and it makes you feel less like a MacTard showing off your iCandy

How does it have a better foundation? I'd like to know the technical reasons why Linux "has a better foundation" OSX.

In anycase, as a Mac user I must admit that Apple need to own up to this. They ****ed up, and now they need to pay. There's no excuse for false advertising.

This "millions of colors" advertising is BS anyways. pure mathematical theory to impress. The human eye can only differentiate between ~30k color tones.

indeed, the human eye can differentiate around 8-10m colors. That's how the 24-bit/16m colors standard was born because by displaying double the colors the human eye can see, the eye will not be able to see color transitions and fading and the image appears 100% natural to the human brain.

Latitude is the name of their computer line, not their monitor line and how is that remotely related to the news article?

(dhavalhirdhav said @ #23)
WTF.... its already so expensive.. and just 6bit colors.. damn.. Apple sucks.

Like anyone could actually see the difference.

when you using the product for detailed graphical work and the company lies to you, causing problems with your work, I'd say that is a reason to notice

(Chrono951 said @ #22.2)
when you using the product for detailed graphical work and the company lies to you, causing problems with your work, I'd say that is a reason to notice

I think he means noticing it as in actually see the difference on screen. It's got nothing to do with details in imagery. You wouldn't see any difference between millions of colors and just hundreds of thousands. The human eye can only differentiate between ~30,000 colors.

I guess I should mention that I don't mean to defend Apple there. False advertising is false advertising. Just making a technical point here. =p

(sorlag said @ #21)
lol... 262,144 colors for graphics work :blink:

No one said you have to do graphics work on it.

The Apple iPod LCD screen is only 60,000-90,000 colors.
The Creative Zen Vision:M LCD screen is 262,144 colors - 4 times more and the new ZEN has a 16.7 Million colors LCD Screen and they even offer a true wide screen player - the ZEN Vision:W. So, you can see why the Creative ZEN has a better screen than the iPod.

(_dandy_ said @ #15)
So when are the hard drive companies going to get sued for their silly "1000 is the new 1024" argument?

Hasn't it been 1000 vs 1024 ever since hard drives first came out?

At least since the early 1990s...

It's not silly it's how it technically is.

Besides, most hard drives I've seen (retail anyway) have a little disclaimer on them about the true size of the disk and what the formatted capacity will be. They must have learned from McDonald's "Warning: Hot coffee is hot" issue.

(C_Guy said @ #15.2)
It's not silly it's how it technically is.

But they haven't started using that line of defense until people started to notice and complain.

(C_Guy said @ #15.2)
Besides, most hard drives I've seen (retail anyway) have a little disclaimer on them about the true size of the disk and what the formatted capacity will be.

That disclaimer hasn't started appearing until recently (relatively speaking)--again, after people started to notice and complain.

(_dandy_ said @ #15)
So when are the hard drive companies going to get sued for their silly "1000 is the new 1024" argument?

they have been sued for that, and they paid for it, so what are you complaining about?

(XerXis said @ #15.4)


they have been sued for that, and they paid for it, so what are you complaining about?


The fact that they're not changing that practice, maybe? Walk into any computer store, and you'll still see "500GB" in big letters covering the whole box.

i guess most people have overlooked this. I had noticed it when I got the new iMac but was not an issue for me as my other monitors are the same.
You can see for yourself by using the CTRL + Mouse wheel to zoom right in and check the dithering.

I love it how when Microsoft is wrong, it's a worldwide catastrophe, but when Apple is wrong it's "no big deal."

(GreyWolfSC said @ #13)
I love it how when Microsoft is wrong, it's a worldwide catastrophe, but when Apple is wrong it's "no big deal."

No, when apple is wrong, it's Neowin being biased.

(Kushan said @ #13.1)

No, when apple is wrong, it's Neowin being biased.


Exactly. Everyone jumps on the same things, "Apple is just as bad as MS, "Apple sux," etc. Please people don't you have better things to whine about.

In B4 "Neowin is biased against Mac users!!!"...

Even though this time, Neowin just reported what was going on and nothing more.

lol are you kidding me? The title itself says all that it needs to about what's happening to this community.

It should be "Apple sued for false advertising claims". The article Parker linked to is titled "Apple Sued Over Deceptive 'Millions of Colors' Advertising". The CTV article is titled "Apple is sued over iMac colours claim", and yet Neowin has already decided for the judge that they're guilty and "busted" as though there was a grand conspiracy.

That is absolutely a biased title, from someone who has redacted articles before, due to claims of strong bias. We come to the front-page for news, not opinion.

I'm not saying Apple isn't guilty here, I'll let the judge decide that. If/when they are found guilty, then Neowin can claim they're "Busted". Hell they can even weld it onto a steel plate and display it on the front-page Mythbusters style.

"I'm a mac"
"I'm a PC"
"Hi, PC! Say, your screen is looking mighty blue today, loloololol"
"At least I can ****ing SEE the blue, you colourblind ****"

That's how it SHOULD be, anyway.

Maybe you better actually read the article before you go spouting off about "old news". This is a new lawsuit that was just filed.

But it does support millions of colors by using dithering as I remember. So MacBooks does support, but the if you would take only screen, then it doesn't. But I have other LCD screen and MacBook and for me the colors are just perfect.

Dithering is just faking colors by placing a restricted set of colors next to each other, so I don't think that would hold up in court.

(Jugalator said @ #6.1)
Dithering is just faking colors by placing a restricted set of colors next to each other, so I don't think that would hold up in court.

Technically it can't display millions of colors, no. Do you see millions of colors? Yes because of how your brain perceives two colors together. It's hard to tell 8-bit and 6-bit color apart unless there is a gradient. Definitely false advertising. I wonder how many other companies say the same thing though about their 6-bit panels.

I still can't get this... How long does Apple is using those panels and people already have discussed about this for how long? 1-2 years. So, why now? Why no one did that at the beginning.

(david13lt said @ #6.3)
I still can't get this... How long does Apple is using those panels and people already have discussed about this for how long? 1-2 years. So, why now? Why no one did that at the beginning.

I thought I read somewhere that this has been a recent change. They originally were using 8 bit panels, and opted to switch to 6 bit sometime recently.

I think I read it here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/1710221 - possibly in the article it references.

That's pretty bad for a company that prides itself for graphics work. I guess though, the real portable graphics work is done on the MBP, which is unaffected?

What exactly is it that makes the PC so inappropriate to do graphical work? I was under the impression that most people use adobe products for this kind of thing, which is available for both platforms.. 3d modelling software is obviously available for both platforms... I'm beginning to think this is just a matter of artists not wanting to follow the norm.

All TN panels are 6bit, this isn't apple only, all LCD companies who are selling their TN panels do NOT support 'millions of colors'.

nonick you completely missed the point of the article. Please at least read it before trying to defend them.

MOST TN panels = 6 bit+FRC = 16.2 Million colors, granted they are dithered "simulated" but the perceived amount of colors is still in the millions.... it's not COMPLETELY black & white.

Good. It's about time Apple start getting sued when they do all the things Microsoft would (or have already) been sued for. Granted this is a pretty silly lawsuit though, there are much better things to sue Apple over.

Next up: False advertising for Safari.

I'm not a lawyer, but since you can't quantify something like "being the best," I don't think you can sue over it. While it's a fact that MacBook displays can't display millions of colors, it can be argued whether Safari is actually the "best" browser (it could be the best browser for one person and not the other).

I love Macs, but their advertising has always bothered me a bit, especially with their bold claims about their OS being years ahead, or Safari being the best browser, etc.